Skip to comments.Fever Dreams From My Real Father
Posted on 10/01/2012 1:54:05 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
click here to read article
“Dreams form my real father” is having an impact.
Attacking Gilbert proves it.
The evidence he has uncovered is false because he’s... he’s.... he’s a nut!?
I believe the evidence stands on it’s own merits. Frank Davis took naked pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham in December of 1960, shortly after she became pregnant.
Didn’t see a rebuttal to those facts anywhere in your excerpt. What’s a matter? Can’t do anything other than ad hominem the messenger? So he’s a nut, but the facts he has uncovered speak for themselves. Let’s talk about the actual evidence, shall we?
He must be hitting a nerve. Not a word about the evidence. All of it is how kooky and untrustworthy Gilbert is. And how does one do a search for a specific stock photo one thinks has been used to photoshop a fake building?
Given the effort spent researching this guy and his background, his work product must really be giving them fits.
Forthcoming...it's a series.
Leave it to Democrat LorenC to get it bassackwards. I would think the proof ought to come before the smear. And why are you trafficking with Democrats?
Other than being anti-birther, what proof do you have of his political leanings that are liberal/Democrat?
This is her in 1960:
This is not her:
At least not her in 1960.
This is her in 1972:
Unless she had her jaw broken and reset twice, it ain't her.
Gilbert also made movies claiming Bob Dylan was still alive, so he must be a big fake.
Nothing new here (except the picture of an office). Already discussed last August on FR.
Are we allowed to post articles from ex-FReepers that were ZOTTED?
Let me know if he got anything wrong in what I posted.
Are you over on Fogbow with him?
Lets talk about the actual evidence, shall we?
They don’t like to do that...ever. Wonder why?
You’re not suggesting there aren’t a lot of libertarian-leaning FR members, are you?
Well, first of all he is a weird looking loon that has an unhealthy obsession with this issue that can only be regarded as the act of a sane man *IF* he is actually working FOR the Obama Administration or supporting his policies in General. (Ideologically Liberal)
He's an attorney. As a group they are major contributors to the Democrat party. Throw a rock into a group of attorneys and the odds are you have hit a Democrat. He claims to have voted for Bob Barr, so that means he didn't vote for McCain. A Vote for anyone else was a vote for Obama. (And that's *IF* he's telling the truth)
His Church/School appears to be affiliated with the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement and the International Churches of Christ, which if I recall properly is a pretty Liberal group.
My recollection is that he was banned here at Free Republic. I would count that as a strike against him. I suppose I could dig around in his old postings here on Free Republic for a better analysis, but given that his Cohorts are people like Doctor Conspiracy, I would say that's the direction he leans.
He claims to be a libertarian, but his actions seem to be geared toward helping the Democrats.
three faces of the same model
The model and Stanley Ann Dunham have different chins and noses
and nothing lines up because it simply isn't the same girl.
Examine them closely and see if you can detect a common and specific identifying characteristic.
Good work that. Perhaps lightning will strike twice? :)
Two reasons I can think of. They don't like where it leads, and they don't want to give the topic more publicity.
Your theory is obviously predicated on the belief that Jaws are not movable. :)
The image of Stanley Ann Dunham from a primary school photograph apparently taken in Vernon, Texas, shows that the image you posted, from the w.t.p.o.t.us blog, ISN'T THE SAME GIRL.
You do good work too Fred. As I have mentioned in the past, I am often amazed at how well you can ferret out bits and pieces that were simply unknown to me until you brought them out.
I think I know what isn’t movable. You show an image of a little girl that first appeared on the Nicoloff website, which incorrectly identified her as Stanley Ann Dunham, without any reference to the source of the image. That photograph was cropped from a group of children in which NONE of the children were identified. The same segment also maintained to show two adult couples sitting at a dinner table, and identified one couple as Stanley and Madelyn Dunham. Which identification was patently incorrect.
And you throw it at me that I have come along and muddied the waters?
You really aught to be ashamed of yourself.
I wouldn't rely on the images as absolute proof when it is my understanding that the School Records indicate that they are the same girl.
I'll tell you what. I don't really need the younger picture of Stanley Ann with the crooked tooth, if you will acknowledge that the older picture with the crooked tooth in the same place is really Stanley Ann. Deal?
p.s. I have to go. (Responsibilities.) I'll be back shortly, hopefully less than an hour.
The source of the little girl image you posted:
It’s from a load of garbage. I hesitated before I added my comment to the thread, I expected to be attacked as usual, you didn’t disappoint me.
And you are planning to return and show me that both girls had slightly prominent front teeth (one a little more prominent than the other)and a small incisor (one a little smaller than the other) on the same side, right? You plan to use as proof the Model and Stanley Ann Dunham are the same girl because of a very slight similarity in their teeth - and ignore the fact that NOTHING ELSE in their facial features lines up - not the eyes, not the nose, not the chin, not the ears...
Mind you, Loren C (banned) wouldn't have bothered to write the posted article if the Joel Gilbert story wasn't damaging his hero, so I'm happy to let the misidentification stand. Lord knows the truth hasn't been much use so far, not while you're hanging onto the lie by the skin of your teeth...and Gilbert's film is the new standard.
That upper left first incisor sticks out prominently from this angle. Bear in mind the nude picture is three years older than the younger (and clearer) picture of Stanley Ann. That there is something amiss on her top left incisors is unmistakable in both pictures.
Like I said, you’re hanging on by the skin of (Stanley Anne’s) teeth.
Different angles, different ages. The teeth tell the truth.
Ha, good one! But seriously, if it didn't jut out like that, the light wouldn't catch it so. I noticed that subsequent pictures of Ann all show her teeth straight. (When you can find pictures of her smiling. I've noticed she has a lot of pictures where she doesn't smile with teeth. I think she was very self conscious about those crooked front teeth.)
LINK TO VIDEO PRESENTATION OF MODEL IMAGES:
I find it impossible to understand, why...if someone has seen the images from the video provided by Gilbert, they would fail to see that the images of the Model are the result of photographs taken over a long period...the girl starts out quite young and slim, wearing little make-up, and as she ages, she gains weight, wears more make-up, and a number of times is seen posing with other women, in different locations.
This is the girl, who throughout, Gilbert wants the viewer to believe is someone he identifies as ANN DUNAHM. Note, he doesn’t use her full, correct name. He names her ANN, which would allow him to deny he identified the woman as Stanley Ann Dunham. He’s a slippery sucker, he’s not telling us that Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis are the parents. He’s not that stupid, is he? It’s all smoke and mirrors and innuendo.
We are expected to accept that the photographs were taken by FMD in Hawaii, where, IF Stanley Ann Dunham ever actually was (althought there’s no physical evidence of it until 1963) she could only have been after graduation from high school in 1960 and when she left the island in the Fall of 1961, nine months of which she would have been pregnant (regardless of who the father was) which means she was available for posing for a period of a few months only...NOT YEARS AS THE IMAGES OF THE MODEL SHOWS.
But don’t take any notice of me, I think it’s wonderful, Loren C, the banned freeper who gave us so much grief, finds it worth the while to have a whinge about the Gilbert film being circulated. It’s hurting. I like that a lot, Loren C is squirming.
What I don’t like and will never understand, is why there are some who fequent these forums, even after seeing the photographs, even after being shown how much time elapsed between the images, knowing that Stanley Ann Dunham wasn’t in Hawaii long enough...STILL insist it has to be her. The only way that could be the case, is if FMD followed her around for years with a camera.
Two different girls for sure, and poor old Frank, he had nothing to do with it. (But don’t tell Loren C, the million DVD’s are out, and if someone would like to set up a collection to get another million out, I’ll contribute.)
WHO Des Moines afternoon host Simon Conway had Gilbert as guest Friday.
Host was fascinated. Gilbert was linking ideology.
The Model is not SAD. Gilbertian marketing must insist the untrue is so.
The takeaway above the fray is that the false messiah is not taken at face value.
Given the baseline of no-credibility, the rest is to sweep the Artist Formerly Known As Barry into history's dustbin.
The model, wearing her favourite earrings. I've lost count of the number of times I've been told the black and white images and the tinted images are not the same girl!
When the music’s over...turn out the lights.
Awww..shucks...he’s really riled up, there’s an update now and more to come, I wanna say, Loren C, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
“... In any case, those nude photo claims will be annihilated for good in the final installment of this series. If you haven’t been convinced yet of Gilbert’s rampant dishonesty and disingenuousness, you will be.”
(Now you know how it feels, the lie went halway ‘round the world before truth had time to get its pants on.)
Anyone who's seen the rest of the Marci Moore pictures knows instantly that they are not the same woman, and I cannot fathom why you are attempting to create the impression that they are.
Why are you doing that?
Good to know I got to ya twerp. Ha ha ha ha ha...
Thanks for the Ping.
I’m doing that because I’m an idiot and I need a new hobby. Thanks for reminding me.
That they do.
"But, but, but then that would mean that the MX-as-the-real-father narrative would be untrue! That simply cannot be after all I've invested in time and emotion in running down that angle!"
I guess I came too late to this party to have become entrenched in one particular camp as far as what the deception truly is. To my mind, the scenario that Gilbert has laid out seems the most logical/plausible at current, even if it is not complete either. I've at least watched the film, which is more than can be said for many naysayers, from what I've read on this forum.
The fact that zotted LorenC is up in arms over it makes it all the more likely to be hitting very close to home, IMNSHO.
We all do. I personally think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you are sometimes overzealous, and too willing to seize on inconclusive or dubious data, and too quick to reject provable information. (Such as that picture of the young girl with the crooked tooth not being Stanley Ann Dunham.) You have a rare talent for finding information though, i'll grant you that.
Same thing applies to you...
(Such as that picture of the young girl with the crooked tooth not being Stanley Ann Dunham.)
I gave you the link to where that image came from, that website is the same as identified Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham as one couple at a dinner table, and if you believe that identification, there's no hope for you...Nicoloff finished off that series by showing, in glorious colour, that zero had reptile skin. That's not where I would choose to collect information - it's written for entertainment value, it's Disney-like.
You have a rare talent for finding information though, i'll grant you that.
I don't have anything other than a reasonably good memory, and I have been following this much longer than you, I joined in 2003, you in 2011 iirc. You're trying to teach an old dog new tricks, and it won't work while you are calling me a liar and being patronizing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.